Why doesn't the U.S. and some other countries attack Somolia?

I mean really all they do is take Europe's and the U.S. supplies of stuff hostage all the time because they have nothing better to do.....what does everyone think?

Black Hawk Down

Because that worked so well when the U.S. attacked Iraq and Afghanistan? :?

Because countries can't just pull up their trousers and go attacking other countries?

They have nothing worthwhile for us to take. We could care less about that country.

Because countries can't just pull up their trousers and go attacking other countries?

Theokhoth

Why not? :O

I guess it is because there is little to no gain (massing an army is insanely expencive, nomatter how you look at it, going to attack that place will only round up a loss).

the 2nd part is that youd see Africa in an uproar, it is a very divided place that usually prefers to fix thier own problems, so I do not think they will look kindly at the western world landing to clear out the "problems"

I do think the African nations should do something about the situation tho... it is looking quite bad already

(Do note that I think that the main issue with all this is money)

They have nothing worthwhile for us to take. We could care less about that country.

l4dak47

Point being, they stop attacking supplies.

they are already ocupying iraq and afganistan, everyone would just hate on them if they go stir up another bee-hive. you obviously know very little on the subject.

You do realize that it's not their government that's responsible for piracy, right? It's mostly the cause of destabilization, which is only going to worsen if a war brews in the middle of the country.

[QUOTE="l4dak47"]

They have nothing worthwhile for us to take. We could care less about that country.

tokra213

Point being, they stop attacking supplies.

The expenses cost by them attacking us is far lower than the expenses of declaring war on them and unless they have a major resource such as oil that will cover the costs of the intial war and still benefit us, it's not worthwhile.

[QUOTE="l4dak47"]

They have nothing worthwhile for us to take. We could care less about that country.

tokra213

Point being, they stop attacking supplies.

Black Hawk Down

IPWNDU2

Nice one.

I mean really all they do is take Europe's and the U.S. supplies of stuff hostage all the time because they have nothing better to do.....what does everyone think?

tokra213

It requires commitment to declare war, occupy, and try to transform a country into a stabilized democracy. It worked somewhat well with Iraq and not so well with Afghanistan. Violence is rampant in both countries though and the reason why Iraq is stabilized because they had a government before with some officials that can be relied on and an oil supply that can be used to benefit the country. Somalia has nothing to offer but only an anarchic society and if we were to declare war, I doubt the people would support it for a long time. We could give aid but then again, when does that ever work?

There's also Darfur in Sudan but so far, I don't see any action taking place other than NATO being there, right? Sorry if I'm wrong, I haven't been listening to the news lately. Then again, I doubt news stations in the US would cover the genocide.

It requires commitment to declare war, occupy, and try to transform a country into a stabilized democracy. It worked somewhat well with Iraq and not so well with Afghanistan. Violence is rampant in both countries though and the reason why Iraq is stabilized because they had a government before with some officials that can be relied on and an oil supply that can be used to benefit the country. Somalia has nothing to offer but only an anarchic society and if we were to declare war, I doubt the people would support it for a long time. We could give aid but then again, when does that ever work?

There's also Darfur in Sudan but so far, I don't see any action taking place other than NATO being there, right? Sorry if I'm wrong, I haven't been listening to the news lately. Then again, I doubt news stations in the US would cover the genocide.

Naw, we should not attack them. But we should blow their little pirate ships right out of the water.

Because countries can't just pull up their trousers and go attacking other countries?

Theokhoth

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

Because countries can't just pull up their trousers and go attacking other countries?

Vandalvideo

[QUOTE="tokra213"]

I mean really all they do is take Europe's and the U.S. supplies of stuff hostage all the time because they have nothing better to do.....what does everyone think?

bsman00

Somalia does have a lot of oil. Most of the big oil companys actually just go in and pump it out and leave a trail of destruction. Not so much drugs though.

America would be fighting too many wars at one time... it just doesn't seem likely they'll start another war without finishing Afghan and Iraq first. But if they did eventually attack... they could make a little profit.

[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

Because countries can't just pull up their trousers and go attacking other countries?

duxup

It requires commitment to declare war, occupy, and try to transform a country into a stabilized democracy. It worked somewhat well with Iraq and not so well with Afghanistan. Violence is rampant in both countries though and the reason why Iraq is stabilized because they had a government before with some officials that can be relied on and an oil supply that can be used to benefit the country. Somalia has nothing to offer but only an anarchic society and if we were to declare war, I doubt the people would support it for a long time. We could give aid but then again, when does that ever work?

There's also Darfur in Sudan but so far, I don't see any action taking place other than NATO being there, right? Sorry if I'm wrong, I haven't been listening to the news lately. Then again, I doubt news stations in the US would cover the genocide.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

Because countries can't just pull up their trousers and go attacking other countries?

tokra213

Why not? :O

Does Somalia have anything the US wants? No. There also isn't a government there, as it has collapsed in the past and if they can't govern themselves then I say screw em. If they need to be babysat in order to have a functioning government, then it isn't worth it. Same applies to every country. I still don't fully understand the reasoning behind invading Iraq.

That's like trying to put dynamite on a pool of water in an attempt to destroy water.

Because countries can't just pull up their trousers and go attacking other countries?

Theokhoth

Sorta like Iraq... oh wait.

Somalia doesn't have a governament to overthrow so there is no incentive for the USA to attack it.

Because that worked so well when the U.S. attacked Iraq and Afghanistan? :?

spinoff

Because countries can't just pull up their trousers and go attacking other countries?

Theokhoth

You do realize that it's not their government that's responsible for piracy, right? It's mostly the cause of destabilization, which is only going to worsen if a war brews in the middle of the country.

Barbariser

What government?

no different than US occupying, i mean "liberating", a country for it's natural resources and global position

That's like trying to put dynamite on a pool of water in an attempt to destroy water.

one_plum

that got to be the strangest analogy i've ever heard...

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="leviathan91"]

It requires commitment to declare war, occupy, and try to transform a country into a stabilized democracy. It worked somewhat well with Iraq and not so well with Afghanistan. Violence is rampant in both countries though and the reason why Iraq is stabilized because they had a government before with some officials that can be relied on and an oil supply that can be used to benefit the country. Somalia has nothing to offer but only an anarchic society and if we were to declare war, I doubt the people would support it for a long time. We could give aid but then again, when does that ever work?

There's also Darfur in Sudan but so far, I don't see any action taking place other than NATO being there, right? Sorry if I'm wrong, I haven't been listening to the news lately. Then again, I doubt news stations in the US would cover the genocide.

mixedplanet

They have nothing worthwhile for us to take. We couldn't care less about that country.

l4dak47

To answer the OP's question, it's probably because, uh, they haven't really done anything...I dunno?:P

[QUOTE="mixedplanet"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"] I would argue Iraq wasn't good what so ever.. The surge is not what made it some what stable, its the fact we paid off and armed the groups that were attacking the US forces during the occupation to begin with.. As soon as they feel the deal is over it will start all over again.. whipassmt

Because they have nothing of value (to steal) *cough*oil*cough*

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

[QUOTE="mixedplanet"] true, i believe those bribed armed groups were called "The Awakening".sSubZerOo

They have nothing worthwhile for us to take. We could care less about that country.

l4dak47

Just because we can and have the means to do so doesn't mean we should.

How would attacking Somolia help anyone? If there is something we have learned from Afghanistan it's that you can't force democracy on an unstable nation. We have failed miserably at getting rid of terrorism and creating a more stable nation with Afghanistan, so I doubt we could do any better in Somolia which in many respects, is even worse off than Afghanistan.